1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 10-07076
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations and personal conduct
security concerns generated by his history of financial delinquencies and his failure to
disclose them, as required, on his security clearance application. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On October 12, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines F, financial considerations, and E, personal conduct. The action was taken
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the  adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on November 8, 2011, denying all of the allegations
and requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on January 18, 2012 after
2
having been previously assigned to another judge. A notice of hearing was issued on
January 20, 2012, scheduling the case for February 8, 2012. I held the hearing as
scheduled and received six Government exhibits, marked as Government Exhibits (GE)
1 through 6, and 12 Applicant Exhibits (AE) marked as AE A through L. Also, I
considered the testimony of Applicant. 
At the close of the hearing, I left the record open, at Applicant’s counsel’s
request, for the submission of additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, he submitted
eight additional exhibits marked as AE M through T. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.)
on February 16, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 44-year-old man with two children, ages 23 and 13. He has a high
school education and has obtained some certifications in information technology.
Applicant started his current job two days before the hearing. He is an information
technology consultant for a defense contractor. She has a high school diploma and has
earned two and a half years of college credit. (Tr. 28)
From 2005 to 2008, he worked as a field services technician for a
telecommunications contractor. (GE 1 at 18) He was then laid off and unemployed for
approximately a year. (Tr. 41) For the next three years, Applicant struggled to find long-
term, steady employment. Typically, six months to one year employment stints were
followed by periods of unemployment. Before obtaining his current job, Applicant had
been unemployed for approximately three months. (Tr. 22)
In 2008, Applicant and his girlfriend, the mother of his children, with whom he
had lived for the previous 20 years, separated. (Tr. 18) Applicant retained physical
custody of their teenage son. (Tr. 78) While Applicant and his girlfriend were together,
she managed the family finances. After their separation, Applicant discovered that she
accrued debts without his knowledge and failed to pay many of the bills. (Tr. 18)
Because of his struggles finding steady employment, Applicant was unable to sustain
any debt repayment efforts. Also, each time he obtained a new job, he had to relocate
at his own expense. (GE 3 at 4) By  2010, he had accrued approximately $19,000 of
delinquent debt. One of the debts, subparagraph 1.a,  resulted in a civil judgment
entered against Applicant. 
In November 2010, Applicant contacted a credit management company to help
him get some of his debts removed from his credit reports. They successfully got
subparagraph 1.o removed from his credit report. (Tr. 56) The credit management
company also gave Applicant suggestions for organizing his finances. (Tr. 56-57) 
Currently, Applicant has paid the debt listed in subparagraph 1.i. (AE B at 12)  He
settled subparagraph 1.d (delinquent rent), for $2,635, approximately $500 less than the
balance. (AE M) Per the agreement, Applicant will pay $439 per month from February
Have you had bill of debts turned over to a collection agency? 1
Have you had bills of debts turned over to a collection agency?2
Are you currently 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)?3
3
2012 to June 2012, then make a final payment of $1,102 in July 2012. As of the hearing
date, he had not yet begun implementing the payment plan.   
Applicant also settled the debt listed in subparagraph 1.g, totaling $3,858. He has
been making monthly $259 payments since August 2011. (AE O)
Applicant contends he also satisfied subparagraphs 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.j, 1.l, and
1.m. He provided no supporting documentation. Applicant disputes 1.a, 1.k, 1.h, and
1.n. Applicant provided correspondence from the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.a
indicating that the balance was zero; however, the account number of the debt
referenced in the correspondence does not match the account number of the debt listed
in subparagraph 1.a. (compare AE T with GE 4 at 2-3) I find that subparagraph 1.a and
the debt referenced in AE T are different accounts with the same credit card company.
As for the remainder of the disputed debts, Applicant provided no evidence of contacts
with the creditors setting forth the basis of the disputes.
Applicant maintains a budget. Because he just started his current job, the budget
is based upon his monthly unemployment security benefit. (Tr. 65) He intends to live off
of the same budget he used while unemployed even though his monthly salary is more
than what he received in monthly unemployment compensation. (Tr. 77) He has
approximately $1,000 in savings. (Tr. 68)
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 28, 2010. In response to Question 26e,  Applicant did not list the1
judgment as set forth in subparagraph 1.a. Also, Applicant listed neither any of his debts
that had been referred to collection in response to Question 26g,  nor any of his debts2
that were 90 days delinquent in response to Question 26n.  3
Applicant testified that the only debts of which he was aware when he completed
the e-QIP were subparagraphs 1.a, 1.f, and 1.g. (Tr. 52) He contends that he included
these debts, but they did not appear when he input them electronically. Applicant
testified that he then notified his company’s facility security officer of the problem. (Tr.
52) During an interview with an investigator, in July 2010, Applicant stated that he did
not list the debts because he was unaware he was required to do so. (GE 3 at 4)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
4
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by department counsel  . . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information”
(AG ¶ 18). Applicant’s history of financial delinquencies triggers the application of AG ¶¶
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations,” apply. 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
5
Applicant’s financial problems were primarily caused by employment instability.
The disruption resulting from the separation from his long-time girlfriend who,
unbeknownst to Applicant, mismanaged the family’s finances when they were together,
also contributed to his financial problems. Since then, Applicant has consulted a credit
management agency and begun satisfying his delinquent debts. AG ¶¶ 20(b), the first
prong of 20(c), and 20(d) apply.
The delinquencies that Applicant contends he has paid total approximately
$10,500. Applicant provided corroborating documentary evidence establishing payment
of only half of that amount. Similarly, Applicant disputed approximately $6,500 of the
delinquencies, but provided no documented proof to substantiate the basis for disputing
them. Although Applicant got subparagraph 1.o removed from his credit report, he did
not establish that this debt was not his responsibility. I conclude that neither the second
prong of AG ¶ 20(c) “. . . there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or
is under control,” nor AG ¶ 20(e) apply.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
Under this guideline, “conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified
information.” Moreover, “of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid
answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the
security clearance process.” (AG ¶ 15) 
Applicant’s omission of relevant and material information about his finances from
his security clearance application raises the issue of whether AG ¶ 16(a), “deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct
investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities,” applies. Applicant’s explanation provided at the hearing contradicted
his earlier explanation to the investigator during his subject interview. This contradiction
undermines his credibility. I conclude AG ¶ 16(a) applies without mitigation.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s
conduct and all the relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider
the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
6
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Applicant’s employment instability and his then-girlfriend’s mismanagement of
their finances significantly contributed to his financial problems. There is some presence
of rehabilitation as demonstrated by the payment plans Applicant has implemented.
However, Applicant failed to provide enough supporting documentation to overcome the
financial security concern. 
Lastly, Applicant falsified his security clearance application generating an
unmitigated personal conduct security concern. Considering this case in the context of
the whole-person concept, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. 
 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e - 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.h - 1.I: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k - 1.o: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.c: Against Applicant
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge